Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Did you really mean "I cannot see any extension plan other than Phase IIA as deeply problematic"? Surely the other plans are just as problematic?

 

Tobbes apologies if I come across as naive here

Haven't you effectively

• Written that you disagree with the option's presented and therefore won't be voting
• Assumed that the board has already decided that Option C is the preferred outcome
• Explained in your own thoughts why Option's A and B don't work for you
• Summarised in detail what you'd do, which is effectively Option C albeit with some elements of Option D if and when necessary

What i'm ultimately questioning is why you're choosing to give up your vote, when its actually quite clear which option is your own preference? How would you feel if as a result of your wasted vote, the railway decided to give up on its push to Parracombe and Blackmoor, switching attention to heading North, only for you to publicly say that's not what I would've done?

Am I being too pragmatic in thinking that the first decision to be made is where the railway needs to focus its efforts for any planned extension (addressed by the the questionnaire that has been sent out to members)? The second stage is then to come up with a detailed plan as to how best to achieve the chosen aims of the membership? It's at this point that all the ideas and thoughts can be collated and a detailed strategy for the preferred option generated. What benefit is there for drawing up 4 detailed strategies/plans only for 3 to be rejected, with a significant amount of planning time wasted (which many would then again accuse the board as being poor use of time and money). Also, surely the detail bit is something that requires careful behind the scenes planning, not a step by step document out in the public domain for all interested parties, for and against, to go through with a fine tooth comb and ultimately plan accordingly for?

With regards to the repeated calls for the detail of the OSHI purchase, isn't it best to complete the purchase first rather than question the detail and potentially scupper the sale? Once again, surely a detailed plan as to how the station is to be developed is the next stage of engagement and can be done with much greater control and transparency once the station is owned railway?

I appreciate all the frustrations of recent events and the eagerness for detail, but at this stage in time, I'm struggling to fault the logic of the steps that have been taken.

Paul

 

>>>Am I being too pragmatic in thinking that the first decision to be made is where the railway needs to focus its efforts for any planned extension (addressed by the the questionnaire that has been sent out to members)?

IMHO yes

Phase 2A was several years in the planning and, within the ENPA at least, 5 years in the waiting - at the end of which there is not a single yard of new track. Something went seriously wrong.

The immediate response from the Board gives the impression of being "let's try again, but in smaller chunks". Might they be trying for 'hope over experience'?

The first step surely is to determine how, what and why it all failed so dismally. Only then will it be safe to proceed without risk of another disaster and start talking about a 'new' extension.

 

I too have returned the survey paper without selecting an option but I explained that I was unable to make a selection because of the lack of any real information about the various options (Costs, physical resources required, time-frames etc.) and the feeling that the Board were trying to bulldoze the membership into committing to a particular line of action without having done their homework. I think @Tobbes has detailed this much better than I can and I'd also draw attention to Chris Duffell's letter to the Trustees, a copy of which was posted on here at the beginning of this discussion. (Sorry, I have a copy but can't find the original posting !) Chris made the observation AIUI that, in co-ordination with EA and YVT, the Trust needs to develop a complete strategic plan, with costing estimates, resource requirements, fund-raising potential etc. to be approved by the membership before any further development takes place.
To me this is the only sensible way forward or we risk more wasted effort and disappointment.

 

The trustees are undertaking a consultation, which is not the same as a simple vote.
The question posed was which of these 4 options do you support? "None of the above" is a valid response, even though there was no box for that on the form.

It is to be hoped that the outcome will not be a slavish adherence to the numeric results of the poll, but more an acceptance of some of the points those such as Tobbes have made in their comments. Similarly, my response was that there was insufficient information provided to make an informed choice, and more time should be allowed to properly formulate options with costs and timescales included.

 

Quite right. “A consultation is not a referendum” is a phrase I often used to use in reports and letters back in the days when I was involved in such things, for a public body (and in my experience the Ombudsman always upheld that view, if anyone took their complaints that far).

In any consultation with more than two options it is entirely possible that none of them will receive an overall majority, and that’s why an actual referendum will only ever have two options.

So, as @Tobbes and others have done it my be well worth adding “none of the above” comments and the reasons why - and pressing the Trustees to report the number of ‘noneoftheaboves’ and an analysis of all comments received (as I used to do in my consultation reports) in addition to the totals for the four options.

 

We can only hope this happens and on other groups the suggestion that Chris Duffells choice to step back and take stock seems very popular, that this will also happen but no doubt Chris's option will go down like a lead balloon with the other trustee's simply because its his suggestion

 

Can anyone explain why the L&B Trustees have dismissed Option A* in one sentence?
Obviously by building on the success of EA, a new start in the Yeo Valley is the only way to give the whole project new hope and impetus.
Railwayman 14

 

The logic of that is far from obvious to me, and likewise how it would be accessed.

 

The irony of your statement is that you've just dismissed all the other options in one sentence.

 

Politics is the simply answer to that one

 

Really? Nothing to do with the difficulties of access to the station sites, limited parking, etc.?

I wasn't impressed by the consultation, but the analysis of options 1 and 2 struck me as reasonable.

 

The question was why has the Trust dismissed option A in one sentence simple because that would mean the Trust having to talk to EA.

 

Aren’t they going to have to deal with EA eventually anyway?

 

Yes Keith. They're certainly less realistic than a start South of Wistlandpound where access points are not actually as problematic as judged by the L&B Trustees.

 

So where would this start, what would be done and how would this be more realistic?

So, no missing viaduct, significant road crossings requiring road building, or other material issues then? I've already gleaned in this thread that Chelfham is unsuitable for use as a Woody Bay style base due to planning constraints; having driven past both Snapper and Bratton Fleming, they look rather less accessible (the one time I tried to visit Snapper Halt, I wasn't prepared to risk myself or my car on the road). There are then significant engineering issues around forming a new trackbed near Wistlandpound (I hear suggestions of a 1:35 gradient) where it doesn't appear that the detailed work has been done.

Personalities may be an issue, but if the relationships are as broken as you suggest, then I'm rather confused as to why anyone might ever wish to invest in EA if the Trust will never engage with them.

I'm with @Tobbes and others - something akin to Option C seems the lesser evil, but not in the way that it's proposed.

 

Please provide independent evidence of this supposed rift.

I can't see how Bratton, Chelfham and Snapper are realistic as access points - they all have road access/car parking/planning issues

 

To be honest they have dismissed all the options that they don't want, it will be interesting to see what option the members have chosen or even if a majority have said none of the above, I would think they will have enough on their plate at the moment keeping Woody Bay profitable and the pub which they complete on today by all accounts, irrespective of what is said about it being a separate company the trust own the important A share's and the pub has to be made a success of. As for option A, even a dumb-ass like myself can come up with a workable answer, the responsibility of the Viaduct would be a major issue though but the other issues are pretty straight forward, but that's all for a sunnier day

 

Any reasonable person would think so

 

Having been there AND parked my car in the tiny lay-by on a couple of occasions, I know exactly what you mean